just a thought

[pm]

hello i support you guys 100 %
in what you are doing,
just a thought if you are being modernised
eg, using new equipment
to replace your jobs,
but at the same time are being
treated badly,
would protesting for the equipment to be removed,
to protect your jobs
be a good viable option ?
p.s keep up the good work
pm

[IWW Fellow Worker]

hello i support you guys 100 %
in what you are doing,
just a thought if you are being modernised
eg, using new equipment
to replace your jobs,
but at the same time are being
treated badly,
would protesting for the equipment to be removed,
to protect your jobs
be a good viable option ?
p.s keep up the good work
pm

In a properly ordered society, the introduction of labour saving machinery would be a great benefit to the workers. It would mean a reduction in working hours with no loss of pay. Under capitalism, the introduction of labour saving machinery means thousands thrown out of work. New equipment isn't the problem, greedy, morally bankrupt bosses are. The problem has to be eliminated.

[Opti]

hello i support you guys 100 %
in what you are doing,
just a thought if you are being modernised
eg, using new equipment
to replace your jobs,
but at the same time are being
treated badly,
would protesting for the equipment to be removed,
to protect your jobs
be a good viable option ?
p.s keep up the good work
pm

In a properly ordered society, the introduction of labour saving machinery would be a great benefit to the workers. It would mean a reduction in working hours with no loss of pay. Under capitalism, the introduction of labour saving machinery means thousands thrown out of work. New equipment isn't the problem, greedy, morally bankrupt bosses are. The problem has to be eliminated.

Do you think the problem will ever be eliminated?

The workforce has been turned into little more than a machine. Eventually the rich will hold *all* the money, they will probably just feed enough people to keep the machines going and serve them while the rest of us scrabble in the dirt.

[baldrick]

hello i support you guys 100 %
in what you are doing,
just a thought if you are being modernised
eg, using new equipment
to replace your jobs,
but at the same time are being
treated badly,
would protesting for the equipment to be removed,
to protect your jobs
be a good viable option ?
p.s keep up the good work
pm

Thanks for the support. We have never been against new equipment being introduced and there has been a lot of new technology brought in over the last 25 years. But we do think that the workforce should get some benefit such as a shorter working week.

[IWW Fellow Worker]

hello i support you guys 100 %
in what you are doing,
just a thought if you are being modernised
eg, using new equipment
to replace your jobs,
but at the same time are being
treated badly,
would protesting for the equipment to be removed,
to protect your jobs
be a good viable option ?
p.s keep up the good work
pm

Thanks for the support. We have never been against new equipment being introduced and there has been a lot of new technology brought in over the last 25 years. But we do think that the workforce should get some benefit such as a shorter working week.

Yes, it's a management lie, which has been swallowed by politicians and so-called journalists, that we're opposed to change. We've both got many years in, and in our time we've seen plenty of change. The difference this time is the bulldozing through of change by a couple of bastards who obviously know little of what goes on in the real world of work.

[Spedley]

My view differs from most peoples on this point. I've only been with RM for 6 years and I would be one of the first to go.

I don't see any point in doing work a machine can do better. If RM want to lay-off 40,000 people because their jobs can be done by machines then that is fine by me. For example, there is no way I'm going to work in the fields cuting corn with a scythe - a machine can do it better and my job would be pointless.

I don't think Royal Mail are introducing machinery to replace us because it would already have started and training on the the new machines would have begun.
I think they are changing our working practices beyond what I would consider 'within the socail norm' so they can lay-off 40,000.

In short I think unfair flexible working and pay-cuts are the reason for the job losses and mechanisation is an excuse.

[IWW Fellow Worker]

You forgot to mention unofficial early starts and using your car on delivery. Your sort would be the first to go if I had my way. No question about it.

[L Tommo]

Spedley.. Hand in your notice then....


39,999 TO GO...


OUT


PS now find the strike breakers...

[Biggins]

I work on a machine and they will never replace workers... the amount of letters they reject, rip, burn and missort is unreal. We have 4 people running the machine 2 checking for missorts, a person on a stamp canceller to deal with uncancelled rejects, a person to put rejects that might go back through the right way round, a runner per machine collecting the rejects for the ops, the staff on the ops to sort rejects, around 4 engineers to keep it going and god knows how many workers connected to the machine via monitor just about reading everything it processes. In my opinion it is frankly impossible to get a machine to reliably sort letters, unless they are all perfect size, thickness and have a perfectly contrasted printed font. I've worked on these machines for a good 10yr and in that time I've only seen them create more work for staff. The extremes managers will go to get machines to work is unreal... I recall one time when a manager had around 10 staff on a CFC... its rediculous. It's a complete myth that this is the reason for job cuts... The real reason is laying off staff and putting more work on the staff who remain, via flexibility etc... I understand that people who don't work in mailcentres are lead to believe these machines are the ultimate labour saving device, my honest opinion is they aren't worth the hassle and going back to sorters a frames would be cheaper, more realiable and more efficient. I haven't even touched on the cost in parts, some in the thousands for just a circuit board and the time lost in breakdowns, bringing that into the equation it makes you wonder why RM insist on persuing these bloody machines. I have been told many other countries have scrapped mechanisation for precisely these reasons. I certainly wouldn't be happy to step aside for these machines but the excuse RM are producing that these machines will take are jobs is crap! Its Leighton raping us of everything that is gonna cost us our jobs!

[IWW Fellow Worker]

I work on a machine and they will never replace workers... the amount of letters they reject, rip, burn and missort is unreal. We have 4 people running the machine 2 checking for missorts, a person on a stamp canceller to deal with uncancelled rejects, a person to put rejects that might go back through the right way round, a runner per machine collecting the rejects for the ops, the staff on the ops to sort rejects, around 4 engineers to keep it going and god knows how many workers connected to the machine via monitor just about reading everything it processes. In my opinion it is frankly impossible to get a machine to reliably sort letters, unless they are all perfect size, thickness and have a perfectly contrasted printed font. I've worked on these machines for a good 10yr and in that time I've only seen them create more work for staff. The extremes managers will go to get machines to work is unreal... I recall one time when a manager had around 10 staff on a CFC... its rediculous. It's a complete myth that this is the reason for job cuts... The real reason is laying off staff and putting more work on the staff who remain, via flexibility etc... I understand that people who don't work in mailcentres are lead to believe these machines are the ultimate labour saving device, my honest opinion is they aren't worth the hassle and going back to sorters a frames would be cheaper, more realiable and more efficient. I haven't even touched on the cost in parts, some in the thousands for just a circuit board and the time lost in breakdowns, bringing that into the equation it makes you wonder why RM insist on persuing these bloody machines. I have been told many other countries have scrapped mechanisation for precisely these reasons.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the reason Dozier can say the competition are 40% more efficient? The fact that all of their mail is the same size unlike the stuff we handle?

[Biggins]

Hardly we are the mugs that sort it for them... businesses such as ukmail get us to process it for them!

[Biggins]

One of the most infuriating bits of propaganda I ever heard from RM was that this strike was the opportunity that the competition were waiting for... I personally think the competition was crapping itself as there is no way they can cope with the workload we deal with... especially when they get us to process and deliver it for them... Did no one know that we do this for them? The next time you get a letter with UKMail or TNT on the indicia check for a machine code on the the front and a Imp return mark on the back! I think we get 13p -14p per item, its considered a mailsort3 tariff... I think!

[Trends Guild]

hello i support you guys 100 %
in what you are doing,
just a thought if you are being modernised
eg, using new equipment
to replace your jobs,
but at the same time are being
treated badly,
would protesting for the equipment to be removed,
to protect your jobs
be a good viable option ?
p.s keep up the good work
pm

In a properly ordered society, the introduction of labour saving machinery would be a great benefit to the workers. It would mean a reduction in working hours with no loss of pay. Under capitalism, the introduction of labour saving machinery means thousands thrown out of work. New equipment isn't the problem, greedy, morally bankrupt bosses are. The problem has to be eliminated.

AIUI Royal Mail wanted to hand over 20% of RM shares to employees but the CWU rejected it (as did the government).
How can wealth be transferred to the ordinary workers if they refuse to accept it?

[Biggins]

Also forgot to mention the staff used to unstick mail that has been brought into the office from the customer who has put too much gum on the envelope. Remember we hav all these machines already and a structure that is already in place... I would say so far as mechanisation goes we are well ahead of the competition. We have the latest and technology available. I could be wrong but upto now all I have seen happening is rival firms collecting from the customer and bringing it to us. Not an ideal situation granted but we're still in the equation... big style as we are processing and delivering it still. Even when we lose business we are still getting paid for it. I really fail to see how we are lacking on the technological front. I am firmly of the belief that modernisation means we do more work for less. The only advantage (if you can call it that) that a rival firm could have on us is that they employ on a casual(flexible) basis, pay minimum wage and have no overheads like shift allowances or contributing to pension schemes! These factors will relate to the service they provide tho.

[mailjock]

Trends Guild stated: AIUI Royal Mail wanted to hand over 20% of RM shares to employees but the CWU rejected it (as did the government).
How can wealth be transferred to the ordinary workers if they refuse to accept it?

I don't remember any CWU vote on this - I do remember mouth music from the puppet master and his dummy about it but from memory the Governmnet, who is the sole shareholder in RM - rejected it.

Also I wonder how much of the 20 per cent would have been allocated to Leighton and his cronies.

As to the phantom share scheme - well I wonder how many of us will be here in 5 years to see whether they ever pay-out.